Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Thank God for Mike Scioscia and his ill-advised squeeze play, or this one would still be going on. That was about everything you could ask for in a playoff game, but especially the win. Next stop Rays!

I think it's more likely that his command and velocity were off because his oblique still wasn't 100%. He was sharp as hell right off the bat when he came back from the few weeks he missed after his elbow went wonky, so our best evidence would seem to indicate missing a little time shouldn't #### him up.

I'll admit, it's damn unconventional, but Wakefield in game 1 makes the most sense to me given all the other variables, and you can do it and still get 2 starts from each of Lester/Beckett/Matsusaka, with none of them on short rest.

I hate Textbook Editor's rotation option, with the natural caveat that I want the Red Sox to win the ALCS.

For his career, Wakefield has a 3.92 ERA in domes, a 4.18 ERA at home, a 4.06 ERA in cold-weather March/April, and a 4.20 ERA in cold-weather September/October. Sure, he has a career 2.86 ERA in Tampa Bay, but in 2008 he has a 5.87 ERA in Tampa Bay.

Suffice it to say, I see little reason to think that the advantage in pitching Wakefield (even if there is one, and I remain to be convinced that there is one) is significant enough to bump him ahead of the three clearly superior starters in the rotation. I mean, I like Mark Bellhorn, but I don't want the Sox to sign him and start him over Dustin Pedroia (though the ALDS version of Pedroia was hardly the MVP of the previous few months).

Huh, I didn't know Darren was a textbook editor. Darren--what subjects/level do you work on? I mainly do college chemistry/physics, but I've dabbled in television/theater production of late as well.

My proposed rotation in #19 was based on the following facts:

(1) They need a 4th starter for the series

(2) It seems they prefer to start Wakefield instead of Byrd because of the catching issue, saving Byrd as the long man. This could very well be important if Beckett blows up in his next start (which to me is at least a 25% possibility you need to have a plan B for).

(3) If you're going to start Wakefield against TB, my guess is they'd rather have him start in the dome, where there is less possible variability with winds, etc. for the knuckleball. That leaves only Games 1, 2, 6 & 7 for the start, and I'm guessing they would prefer him not to start a Game 6 or 7 if they could help it.

(4) Starting Wakefield (or Byrd, even, if you wanted to go that way--I prefer Wakefield but couldn't argue with Byrd) in Game 1 allows your other 3 starters to slot in for 2 starts each, while allowing extra rest early in the series for starters they'd prefer to get it (Beckett & Matsusaka).

(5) I don't think the Red Sox think a Game 1 loss is any more or less important than a Game 4 loss (unless you were down 0-3, of course), and so who starts Game 1 is less important in the bigger picture to them then how they slot things for Games 1-7 on the whole.

I'm not saying the Red Sox will do what I'm proposing--I think it's rather unlikely--but it isn't totally crazy, and if you happen to win Game 1 with Wakefield starting, it's a huge boost, because now you're set up the rest of the series. If you lose Game 1, well, it's only Game 1 and you're still set up the rest of the series with the best starters you have (with 2 of them getting extra rest in there). It's at least worth considering, is all I'm saying.

Apropos of nothing, because I doubt he'll matter, but this is what is listed under "Fielding" on Gil Velazquez' Wikipedia page:

Velazquez is an average fielder commiting few errors. He is a shortstop that always pays attention of what is happening so he can field the ball. He has average run speed, which also helps him field balls easily and is able to run bases well and steal bases well on occasions.

what's the rule on DLing players in the playoffs? I thought if a guy got hurt during a series (like ALDS), you could not replace him until after the series ended, but the Sox brought in Vlsq---z for Lowell.

what's the rule on DLing players in the playoffs? I thought if a guy got hurt during a series (like ALDS), you could not replace him until after the series ended, but the Sox brought in Vlsq---z for Lowell.

You can replace him, but then the guy (Lowell, in this case) is automatically unavailable for the next series.

I don't get the point of Velazquez. He's only going to play if someone gets hurt and it's not like he's a huge improvement on whatever goofy configuration they'd have if they were short a MI. Jeff Bailey or Chris Carter are sorta useful in every game

A) Francona said postgame that he also thought Lester should pitch the eighth. But he said he saw Lester's fist-pump after the seventh and decided it was over for the young ace. I guess that's good managing... I don't know. Sure didn't look that good but I guess it all worked out.

B) Reggie Willits played a fascinating role in this ALDS. Has a defensive replacement / pinch runner ever been involved in so many key moments? The really weird thing was it appeared that Scioscia was pushing all the right Willits-buttons but it just wasn't working out for the Halos... He got him in there as a defensive replacement in game 2, only to have Ortiz's blast bounce out of his glove. Then he pinch ran but couldn't outrun a catcher back to 3rd base last night, although that play was hardly Reggie's fault. Then he makes a great effort at Bay's slicer 5 minutes later, but comes up just short. Of course Lowrie singled to right two batters later, so that it was on Willits to make the miracle throw, which he could not do. Wow.

C) Manny Ramirez now has a super chance of earning a WS share... If Dodgers and Sox advance, will he be the first player, or at least the first starter, to have a financial stake in either team winning?

Isn't a share voted on by players after the series? Manny's not guaranteed one (and as TomH says, it would be an interesting vote), so I don't think there's any conflict involved

I thought if a player was on a roster for a certain amount of time, he was due, by rule, a certain share. I recall this coming up with the Yankees and Carl Pavano who by virtue of his extended DL stints earned full playoff shares every year he was with the team.

I thought if a player was on a roster for a certain amount of time, he was due, by rule, a certain share. I recall this coming up with the Yankees and Carl Pavano who by virtue of his extended DL stints earned full playoff shares every year he was with the team.

Our favorite retired homophobic relief pitcher pretty much confirms your take .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

So Manny played in 61% of Red Sox games and 32% of Dodger games. Obviously this up to the players to vote, and I'd guess the Red Sox aren't feeling espcially generous towards Manny.

But I suppose in theory if the Sox gave him the 60% he "earned" and the Dodgers--feeling grateful for all that Manny did for the team--gave him a higher percentage than his games played, Manny could earn something like a 110% share.

Francona said postgame that he also thought Lester should pitch the eighth. But he said he saw Lester's fist-pump after the seventh and decided it was over for the young ace. I guess that's good managing... I don't know.

That is very interesting and the kind of thing we don't pay enough attention to.

Sounds like the players have complete control over who gets what. Sure a player should probably *expect* to get something if he played for the team - but it doesn't sound like they are guaranteed anything.

I'm pretty sure Nomar got a full share in 2004. I would be really surprised if Manny doesn't get a full share from the Sox - they've always seemingly been generous with those types of things. (The new truck for the bullpen catcher comes to mind)

For his career, Wakefield has a 3.92 ERA in domes, a 4.18 ERA at home, a 4.06 ERA in cold-weather March/April, and a 4.20 ERA in cold-weather September/October. Sure, he has a career 2.86 ERA in Tampa Bay, but in 2008 he has a 5.87 ERA in Tampa Bay.

he expanded on that after the game. he said a pitcher who comes into the dugout thinking he's done for the evening has a tendency to ratchet down the emotion and might not gain it back again if he's sent back out. So Francona decided to not take a chance on that and took him out.

The way he described it also seemed to indicate that it was a pretty close call in his mind.

I wouldnt be surprised if, in the case of one of the first 2 games being an extra-inning marathon (as the Sox are known to be involved in during the LCS), Wakefield ends up being used in relief and then Byrd will go in game 4.

I'm less than enthused with the rotation in #62. At least pitch Lester in Game 2 and 5 on normal rest. We could easily be down 0-2 going into Boston with Lester/Wakefield/Matsusaka planned for 3, 4 & 5, and if that's the case we may not see a Game 6 or 7, which means that in the most important series of the year, 3 of the first 5 games will have been started by Matsusaka & Wakefield. That's just crazy. Look, I know my plan in #19 was not going to be adopted, but if you aren't going to go that way, isn't this the more optimal version:

Matsusaka pitches both games away from Fenway (where he's better); Lester pitches 2 of the first 5 games on normal rest, we steal extra rest for Beckett for both starts, as well as for Matsusaka. I don't get this extra rest for Lester issue that's come up--unless he has an injury that has not been disclosed, he should be fine. Pitching him in 2 of the first 5 games is a decided advantage and we're pissing it away throwing him in Game 3 and a Game 7 we may not get to see. Worse, if Beckett blows up for good in Game 2, then you're totally screwed and start Paul Byrd in Game 6. At least if you find out he's toast in Game 3 you can punt such a move to a Game 7, when presumably it would be all hands on deck anyway.

I'm probably missing something here; I just don't see the rotation setup in #62 as optimal.

[Edit: I had Lester pitching in Games 3 & 6 in the scheme in #62, when it is likely it would be Games 3 & 7; edited accordingly.]

I agree. Your post pretty much sums up my thoughts when I saw the rotation setup on the Globe's website. My first, visceral, reaction was that it reflected an overconfidence bordering on arrogance.

The team had a chance to throw their best pitcher in games 2 and 5 on full rest, and didn't do it. If the series goes 5, you pitched Dice twice and your best pitcher once. Series goes six, you still only pitched your best guy once.

I confess, I don't get it. I understand the Dice K on the road thing. But I don't understand Beckett in game two unless they truly believe his troubles in the ALDS were rust related.

I didn't see rust. I just saw a short fastball. Who knows. I hope I'm wrong and Dice K leads the charge to victory and a Lester game 1 WS start. The pessimist side of me says 0-2 hole going to Boston and a five game ALCS loss.

I'm probably missing something here; I just don't see the rotation setup in #62 as optimal.

Francona's playing the home/road splits. Beckett's better on the road, Lester's better at home, so he's pitching them so that, at least in their first respective starts, Beckett's on the road and Lester is at home.

I thought knuckleballers were typically better outdoors, where the breeze added movement.

IIRC, guys who come to a team late in the year and are key contributors usually are voted a full share. So the Sox would vote one to Bay, and the Dodgers to Manny, though Manny's potential for a Sox share as well could have sway.

Francona's stated rationale is that he didnt want to give any of the 3 SP's either too much or too little rest, so he kept them in the same order as the LDS. I also think (optimistically) that it reveals a confidence in the health of one Joshua Beckett.

I thought knuckleballers were typically better outdoors, where the breeze added movement.

Wake's been marginally better indoors over his career. at the Trop, he's had a 2.86 career ERA, although up until this year he was always facing atrocious teams.

He's had a varied League Championship Career: 2 complete game wins in 92 for the Bucs. Left off the roster in 1999. 2 wins versus the Yankees in 2003, but of course the relief appearance in game 7. In 2004: bad stats for the series after getting lit up out of the pen in games 1 & 3, but a season-saving 3 shutout innings in the magical soul-quaking game 5 (which happens to be Wake's last relief appearance). And then last year he got lit up by the Indians in his only LCS game.

Question for people familiar with the Boston ticket scalping scene. It appears likely I'm going to have a pair that I want to get rid of for Thursday's game. What's the best (both in terms of rate of return and odds of getting ticketed/arrested) way to go about doing this?

It appears likely I'm going to have a pair that I want to get rid of for Thursday's game. What's the best (both in terms of rate of return and odds of getting ticketed/arrested) way to go about doing this?

Pretty sure that if the series exists in a vacuum without park or rest considerations, there's no difference between any Lester/Matsuzaka/Beckett x2 configurations the Sox could have chosen.

Correct. There is an illusion that the order matters, since Game 7 will often not be played, however that only happens when it wouldn't make a difference anyways. In retrospect, did the Angels win in Game 3 of the Division Series matter? Or the three Indians wins in the ALCS last year? The only difference between Game 7 and the other games of the series is that you know AHEAD of time whether or not Game 7 will make a difference.

The ordering of your starters might matter to "momentum" or "confidence", and it can definitely affect whether the series finishes in six games or seven, but mathematically it shouldn't make any difference to the outcome.

My goals for the post-season rotation:
(1) Get Lester, Matsuzaka, and Beckett two starts each. They are the Red Sox best pitchers.

(2) Get Lester into as many home games as possible. Matsuzaka is slightly better on the road than in Fenway. Beckett is MUCH better on the road than in Fenway, and has been in each of the last two years.

(3) Get Matsuzaka extra rest as much as possible. He is a good pitcher on "normal" rest. Excepting the horrendous start in which he was rushed back from the DL (officially 24 days rest, but actually just five days after his one and only rehab start), Matsuzaka has a 3.07 ERA on normal rest, a 2.49 ERA with 5 days rest, and a 1.66 ERA with 6 days rest (13, 8, and 7 GS respectively). You don't want to piss away an advantage like that over lesser considerations.

(4) Avoid having Lester make any unnecessary starts. He is already ~60 innings over his previous career high, and we want him to remain healthy and effective for 2009 and beyond.

Seems that these goals are pretty much what Francona is achieving with his chosen rotation, no?

Not that Ive heard. In the ALDS Maddon stayed away from using him in logical spots, though... so maybe.

I think its a big karmic mistake on Tampa's part... you gotta give Hinske a revenge chance. Not that he has any reason to take revenge on the Sox, but the way players regularly torch their former teams... you need that karma on your side. Also, he's a better player than whoever replaced him and has a lot of uses.

He doesn't really have much use to them with a healthy Crawford. They prefer Gross in right because he's a similar bat and a better glove, and he's not going to see any PT at the IF corners or at DH over Floyd. His only real use was if they were going to use him to PH for Bartlett, which Maddon didn't do in obvious spots in the ALDS, so he pretty clearly was not going to see any meaningful action.

Three catchers still enables the Red Sox to pinch-hit for their catchers twice in the late innings of a close game, and while Casey and Drew/Crisp aren't the best PH options, they still make a meaningful upgrade over any of the catchers. Given Tito's Game 3 managing, I think carrying Ross remains the right call.